Disinformation: How It Works

There was a time, not too long ago (relatively speaking), that governments and the groups of elites that controlled them did not find it necessary to conscript themselves into wars of disinformation.

Propaganda was relatively straightforward. The lies were much simpler. The control of information flow was easily directed. Rules were enforced with the threat of property confiscation and execution for anyone who strayed from the rigid socio-political structure. Those who had theological, metaphysical or scientific information outside of the conventional and scripted collective world view were tortured and slaughtered. The elites kept the information to themselves, and removed its remnants from mainstream recognition, sometimes for centuries before it was rediscovered.

With the advent of anti-feudalism, and most importantly the success of the American Revolution, elitists were no longer able to dominate information with the edge of a blade or the barrel of a gun. The establishment of Republics, with their philosophy of open government and rule by the people, compelled Aristocratic minorities to plot more subtle ways of obstructing the truth and thus maintaining their hold over the world without exposing themselves to retribution from the masses. Thus, the complex art of disinformation was born.

The technique, the “magic” of the lie, was refined and perfected. The mechanics of the human mind and the human soul became an endless obsession for the establishment.

The goal was malicious, but socially radical; instead of expending the impossible energy needed to dictate the very form and existence of the truth, they would allow it to drift, obscured in a fog of contrived data. They would wrap the truth in a Gordian Knot of misdirection and fabrication so elaborate that they felt certain the majority of people would surrender, giving up long before they ever finished unraveling the deceit. The goal was not to destroy the truth, but to hide it in plain sight.

In modern times, and with carefully engineered methods, this goal has for the most part been accomplished. However, these methods also have inherent weaknesses. Lies are fragile. They require constant attentiveness to keep them alive. The exposure of a single truth can rip through an ocean of lies, evaporating it instantly.

In this article, we will examine the methods used to fertilize and promote the growth of disinformation, as well as how to identify the roots of disinformation and effectively cut them, starving out the entire system of fallacies once and for all.

Media Disinformation Methods

The mainstream media, once tasked with the job of investigating government corruption and keeping elitists in line, has now become nothing more than a public relations firm for corrupt officials and their Globalist handlers. The days of the legitimate “investigative reporter” are long gone (if they ever existed at all), and journalism itself has deteriorated into a rancid pool of so called “TV Editorialists” who treat their own baseless opinions as supported fact.

The elitist co-opting of news has been going on in one form or another since the invention of the printing press. However, the first methods of media disinformation truly came to fruition under the supervision of newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst, who believed the truth was “subjective” and open to his personal interpretation.

Some of the main tactics used by the mainstream media to mislead the masses are as follows:

Lie Big, Retract Quietly: Mainstream media sources (especially newspapers) are notorious for reporting flagrantly dishonest and unsupported news stories on the front page, then quietly retracting those stories on the very back page when they are caught. In this case, the point is to railroad the lie into the collective consciousness. Once the lie is finally exposed, it is already too late, and a large portion of the population will not notice or care when the truth comes out.

Unconfirmed Or Controlled Sources As Fact: Cable news venues often cite information from “unnamed” sources, government sources that have an obvious bias or agenda, or “expert” sources without providing an alternative “expert” view. The information provided by these sources is usually backed by nothing more than blind faith.

Calculated Omission: Otherwise known as “cherry picking” data. One simple piece of information or root item of truth can derail an entire disinfo news story, so instead of trying to gloss over it, they simply pretend as if it doesn’t exist. When the fact is omitted, the lie can appear entirely rational. This tactic is also used extensively when disinformation agents and crooked journalists engage in open debate.

Distraction, And The Manufacture Of Relevance: Sometimes the truth wells up into the public awareness regardless of what the media does to bury it. When this occurs their only recourse is to attempt to change the public’s focus and thereby distract them from the truth they were so close to grasping. The media accomplishes this by “over-reporting” on a subject that has nothing to do with the more important issues at hand. Ironically, the media can take an unimportant story, and by reporting on it ad nauseum, cause many Americans to assume that because the media won’t shut-up about it, it must be important!

Dishonest Debate Tactics: Sometimes, men who actually are concerned with the average American’s pursuit of honesty and legitimate fact-driven information break through and appear on T.V. However, rarely are they allowed to share their views or insights without having to fight through a wall of carefully crafted deceit and propaganda. Because the media know they will lose credibility if they do not allow guests with opposing viewpoints every once in a while, they set up and choreograph specialized T.V. debates in highly restrictive environments which put the guest on the defensive, and make it difficult for them to clearly convey their ideas or facts.

TV pundits are often trained in what are commonly called “Alinsky Tactics.” Saul Alinsky was a moral relativist, and champion of the lie as a tool for the “greater good”; essentially, a modern day Machiavelli. His “Rules for Radicals” were supposedly meant for grassroots activists who opposed the establishment and emphasized the use of any means necessary to defeat one’s political opposition. But is it truly possible to defeat an establishment built on lies, by use of even more elaborate lies, and by sacrificing one’s ethics? In reality, his strategies are the perfect format for corrupt institutions and governments to dissuade dissent from the masses. Today, Alinsky’s rules are used more often by the establishment than by its opposition.Alinsky’s Strategy: Win At Any Cost, Even If You Have To Lie

Alinsky’s tactics have been adopted by governments and disinformation specialists across the world, but they are most visible in TV debate. While Alinsky sermonized about the need for confrontation in society, his debate tactics are actually designed to circumvent real and honest confrontation of opposing ideas with slippery tricks and diversions. Alinsky’s tactics, and their modern usage, can be summarized as follows:

1) Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.

We see this tactic in many forms. For example, projecting your own movement as mainstream, and your opponent’s as fringe. Convincing your opponent that his fight is a futile one. Your opposition may act differently, or even hesitate to act at all, based on their perception of your power. How often have we heard this line: “The government has predator drones. There is nothing the people can do now…” This is a projection of exaggerated invincibility designed to elicit apathy from the masses.

2) Never go outside the experience of your people, and whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy.

Don’t get drawn into a debate about a subject you do not know as well as or better than your opposition. If possible, draw them into such a situation instead. Go off on tangents. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty in your opposition. This is commonly used against unwitting interviewees on cable news shows whose positions are set up to be skewered. The target is blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address. In television and radio, this also serves to waste broadcast time to prevent the target from expressing his own position.

3) Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.

The objective is to target the opponent’s credibility and reputation by accusations of hypocrisy. If the tactician can catch his opponent in even the smallest misstep, it creates an opening for further attacks, and distracts away from the broader moral question.

4) Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.

“Ron Paul is a crackpot.” “Gold bugs are crazy.” “Constitutionalists are fringe extremists.” Baseless ridicule is almost impossible to counter because it is meant to be irrational. It infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage. It also works as a pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

5) A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.

The popularization of the term “Teabaggers” is a classic example; it caught on by itself because people seem to think it’s clever, and enjoy saying it. Keeping your talking points simple and fun helps your side stay motivated, and helps your tactics spread autonomously, without instruction or encouragement.

6) A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.

See rule No. 5. Don’t become old news. If you keep your tactics fresh, it’s easier to keep your people active. Not all disinformation agents are paid. The “useful idiots” have to be motivated by other means. Mainstream disinformation often changes gear from one method to the next and then back again.

7) Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.

Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. Never give the target a chance to rest, regroup, recover or re-strategize. Take advantage of current events and twist their implications to support your position. Never let a good crisis go to waste.

8) The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

This goes hand in hand with Rule No. 1. Perception is reality. Allow your opposition to expend all of its energy in expectation of an insurmountable scenario. The dire possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.

9) The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

The objective of this pressure is to force the opposition to react and make the mistakes that are necessary for the ultimate success of the campaign.

10) If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.

As grassroots activism tools, Alinsky tactics have historically been used (for example, by labor movements or covert operations specialists) to force the opposition to react with violence against activists, which leads to popular sympathy for the activists’ cause. Today, false (or co-opted) grassroots movements and revolutions use this technique in debate as well as in planned street actions and rebellions (look at Syria for a recent example).

11) The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. Today, this is often used offensively against legitimate activists, such as the opponents of the Federal Reserve. Complain that your opponent is merely “pointing out the problems.” Demand that they offer not just “a solution”, but THE solution. Obviously, no one person has “the” solution. When he fails to produce the miracle you requested, dismiss his entire argument and all the facts he has presented as pointless.

12) Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.

Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. The target’s supporters will expose themselves. Go after individual people, not organizations or institutions. People hurt faster than institutions.

The next time you view an MSM debate, watch the pundits carefully, you will likely see many if not all of the strategies above used on some unsuspecting individual attempting to tell the truth.Internet Disinformation Methods

Internet trolls, also known as “paid posters” or “paid bloggers,” are increasingly and openly being employed by private corporations as well governments, often for marketing purposes and for “public relations” (Obama is notorious for this practice). Internet “trolling” is indeed a fast growing industry.

Trolls use a wide variety of strategies, some of which are unique to the internet, here are just a few:

1. Make outrageous comments designed to distract or frustrate: An Alinsky tactic used to make people emotional, although less effective because of the impersonal nature of the Web.

2. Pose as a supporter of the truth, then make comments that discredit the movement: We have seen this even on our own forums — trolls pose as supporters of the Liberty Movement, then post long, incoherent diatribes so as to appear either racist or insane. The key to this tactic is to make references to common Liberty Movement arguments while at the same time babbling nonsense, so as to make those otherwise valid arguments seem ludicrous by association. In extreme cases, these “Trojan Horse Trolls” have been known to make posts which incite violence — a technique obviously intended to solidify the false assertions of the think tank propagandists like the SPLC, which purports that Constitutionalists should be feared as potential domestic terrorists.

3. Dominate Discussions: Trolls often interject themselves into productive Web discussions in order to throw them off course and frustrate the people involved.

4. Prewritten Responses: Many trolls are supplied with a list or database with pre-planned talking points designed as generalized and deceptive responses to honest arguments. When they post, their words feel strangely plastic and well rehearsed.

5. False Association: This works hand in hand with item No. 2, by invoking the stereotypes established by the “Trojan Horse Troll.” For example: calling those against the Federal Reserve “conspiracy theorists” or “lunatics”; deliberately associating anti-globalist movements with racists and homegrown terrorists, because of the inherent negative connotations; and using false associations to provoke biases and dissuade people from examining the evidence objectively.

6. False Moderation: Pretending to be the “voice of reason” in an argument with obvious and defined sides in an attempt to move people away from what is clearly true into a “grey area” where the truth becomes “relative.”

7. Straw Man Arguments: A very common technique. The troll will accuse his opposition of subscribing to a certain point of view, even if he does not, and then attacks that point of view. Or, the troll will put words in the mouth of his opposition, and then rebut those specific words.

Sometimes, these strategies are used by average people with serious personality issues. However, if you see someone using these tactics often, or using many of them at the same time, you may be dealing with a paid internet troll.

Stopping Disinformation

The best way to disarm disinformation agents is to know their methods inside and out. This gives us the ability to point out exactly what they are doing in detail the moment they try to do it. Immediately exposing a disinformation tactic as it is being used is highly destructive to the person utilizing it. It makes them look foolish, dishonest and weak for even making the attempt. Internet trolls most especially do not know how to handle their methods being deconstructed right in front of their eyes and usually fold and run from debate when it occurs.

The truth is precious. It is sad that there are so many in our society who have lost respect for it; people who have traded in their conscience and their soul for temporary financial comfort while sacrificing the stability and balance of the rest of the country in the process.

The human psyche breathes on the air of truth. Without it, humanity cannot survive. Without it, the species will collapse, starving from lack of intellectual and emotional sustenance.

Disinformation does not only threaten our insight into the workings of our world; it makes us vulnerable to fear, misunderstanding, and doubt: all things that lead to destruction. It can drive good people to commit terrible atrocities against others, or even against themselves. Without a concerted and organized effort to diffuse mass-produced lies, the future will look bleak indeed.

Thinkers gonna think regardless of anything spewed at them. It's the people who don't, who are given falsified information, that affect the status quo negatively. Because of some bullshit they watched on TV, things automatically become the truth. Oh lawd why.

Truth, Reason and Mathematics. I have found that by the time a child is 5 years old, they can understand clearly that the entire government is one big criminal organization and that everything they say and do is a lie. After Bernanke's little speech to the children the other day, it has become clear that the war has shifted to even younger minds. Don't let your children watch TV, not even cartoons, if you want them to have a chance of surviving whats coming at them, which would be slavery to the wealthy for eternity.

How many of you Zerohedgers have been brainwashed to think that "Money is created as Debt"?

They tricked you...

Money is created as Credit.

They print it and spend it on themselves and their friends, and then we get stuck with their tab.

"Pose as a supporter of the truth, then make comments that discredit the movement: We have seen this even on our own forums — trolls pose as supporters of the Liberty Movement, then post long, incoherent diatribes so as to appear either racist or insane."\

I think they started the Tea Bagger tag because at first the Tea peeps had tea bags hanging off of their hats, shirts, and the like - to express their point. The problem was they didn't reference Urban Dictionary and change their wardrobe before the MSM got to them...

I just want to hang a few thousand central bankers MF. You got a problem with that?

Truth MF.

"Pose as a supporter of the truth, then make comments that discredit the movement: We have seen this even on our own forums — trolls pose as supporters of the Liberty Movement, then post long, incoherent diatribes so as to appear either racist or insane. The key to this tactic is to make references to common Liberty Movement arguments while at the same time babbling nonsense, so as to make those otherwise valid arguments seem ludicrous by association. In extreme cases, these “Trojan Horse Trolls” have been known to make posts which incite violence — a technique obviously intended to solidify the false assertions of the think tank propagandists like the SPLC, which purports that Constitutionalists should be feared as potential domestic terrorists."

Lets say I'm Ben Bernanke and you and I, just the two of us, land on an island (like Robinson Crusoe) and I loan you $100 at 1% interest. You can never, as long as you live, no matter what, ever be able to pay it off unless I print that extra Dollar and loan it to you. You could then pay me back the $101, but you would still owe me that extra $1 (plus interest). Since there is no parellel universe for you to borrow it from, and if you print it I will arrest you for counterfeiting, I got you by the balls, so I foreclose on and reposses your half of the Island. Seems fair enough to me. That is exactly how the government stole everyones land, homes and businesses. Now, let's see how the Trolls respond to this in the comments below:

In this case I think Gully is right. We are all conditioned to do things that result in positive praise. That is how I conditioned my kids. It stops them from putting their hands on the hot stove etc. It is very difficult to undo this training. Some kids are given praise for thinking logically (and anti-parent) and some seek negative feedback because the positive never happens. But these are in the minority.

I find myself upvoting funny things that agree with the ZH crowd. I probably would not in another crowd where the ZH message is received with hostility. I consider myself a fairly independant thinker, but it may be all artiface. Maybe I am just a sheep who thinks I look like a wolf.

"I love that quote, as it explains why people can be so clueless.Because they WANT to be." - - pods

Stupidity, cowardice, and laziness probably explains why many are clueless. But there is a majority of the population that don't think in Big Picture, long time frames. They prefer to deal with the more immediate - 'hands on' matters that they consider more 'practical'. There are also many people who are traditionalist, straight-shooter types who follow the rules and don't like to rock the boat -much less think outside the box of what is conventional.

These people aren't stupid. They are often very good at thinking on their feet, and 'rolling with the punches' that life throws at them. But, if you get into discussion about the economy and long term trends, they may begin to fidget and their eyes glaze over. Trying to push them to see using arguments usually doesn't work. They need to see/feel the impact of what is going on in their lives personally, first.

Bottomline point I'm making - - - time will tell. Not enough Americans feel a high enough level of pain yet. When they do, who knows what the results will be. I don't think we can judge , (based on current experience trying to 'wake' people up), what will happen in the future. What we tell them today, may all come together and make sense to them at a later date.

Note: the differences in how temperment impacts how people view and act in the world can be studied by checking out the work of Myers-Briggs and MBTI theory. This has helped with my patience level when dealing with people who now seem clueless.

Labels and groups accomplish the same thing. The whole purpose of our two party system is to control thought. Get someone committed to supporting one side vs the other and you have them trapped. Even if they only marginally support one side, and no matter how much lip service the give to being "independent", the hook is set.

downrodeo, Wherein Red Heeler's post does he say or even imply that he's immune to anything? I think I'll print out your post and wipe my ass with it. You've got disinfo troll written all over you, imho of course.

I was speaking to the tone of the post. also, i think you may have a strange disease that renders parentheticals invisible. You missed where i said 'mostly joking'. It seems to be the case that you have committed a 'calculated omission'.

have fun cutting up your rectum with printer paper (just joshin ya. i mean no ill will. just having some fun. zh is supposed to be fun)

I don't watch any TV. But I have seen Breaking Bad on DVD. BB is drama that happens to be on commercial television. I see a lot of things on DVD. The only things I watch are on DVD or the Internet. Those are not the poison of TV. I wouldn't waste 1 second of my life on commercial television. Commercial television is complete shit.

We're dead for eternity. No reason to waste life by watching TV (or playing video games for that matter). That's not living.

You think I didn't have the same opinions that you hold? I went and was indoctrinated at the same school you went to. It took a while but eventually I grew up, swallowed the pill and saw the truth, hidden by the lie of The Creature's system. http://archive.org/details/Creature_From_Jekyl_Island

If you can't see what I and others see, you aren't lookind hard enough. Your normalcy bias is too powerful for you to escape just yet. Keep reading ZH but then, some people are just trolls or useful idiots. Hope you're not either of those but just some kid screaming platitudes based on servitude.

There may be a few good programs (notice the name) on t.v. - - - but the problem is that it is used as passive, mindless 'entertainment'. In the modern application of 'bread & circuses', t.v. is a very effective circus.

The screen flicker rate used to 'paint' the image on the t.v. screen helps induce a passive state in those who watch.

If you tell most Americans that you don't watch any t.v. (or shudder at the thought - don't own one) the vast majority of them will look at you with confusion & disbelief. It is the center of most homes.

There are so many better ways to use the hours that people spend on t.v.

P.S. - - a violent reaction to the suggestion to turn t.v. off is very telling. Like taking crack from an addict.

If you want in on the Discordian Society then declare yourself what you wish do what you like and tell us about it or if you prefer don't.

All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense...

There are no rules anywhere. The Goddess Prevails.

All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense.

Also heretically expressed as: "All affirmations are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense." and "The teachings of the Sri Syadasti School of Spiritual School of Spiritual Wisdom are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense." — will heresies never cease?

#99 Limit the scope of discussion. In fact, this is the MOST important tactic used by mainstream media, governments, and all elites that do not want the truth to be heard...

Anyone that has read Chomsky knows this to be a fact.

As an example... One hears discussion about how an economy, a war, a soverign state is progressing at the current time... but, NEVER a discussion about why the fuck an economy, a war or a soverign state got into the FUBAR situation to begin with!

...AND...

Why are so many topics on ZH limited to the EU and their leaders, current statements, bond rates, ad nasuem...

We need more discussion about what our number one economic rival is doing; ie, China and it's close supporters in the SCO. I would wager that not ten percent of the followers of ZH know what the SCO is.

In fact, when is ZH going to open discussion about the SCO? I have asked this question at least a half dozen times!

There are probably more people that know about the Shanghai Co-operation Organization than you think. Europe is probably discussed because of the more immediate and game changing impact of default and break up on the financial markets & the world (including the SCO). - - - It would be nice to see more articles focused on the Far East. I usually go to globalresearch.ca and other sources (F. William Engdahl is a favorite writer on these topics).

I used to read ATOL (Asia Times On Line) every day... but, their ads load up my computer with tracking cookies, pop ups, etc, so I stopped going there... after two desk tops were destroyed.

You're right about Engdahl... and there are others at ATOL that I miss reading.

I disagree about EU being a bigger issue than SE Asia, India, and SCO mechanations and the Mid East. I disagree that every word uttered by an EU official is worth coverage. Fact is, the EU will print or they won't. Won't is not an political option, imo. So the EU will print. Now, let's move on to another part of the world that in the medium to long term will have a far greater impact on the US and the West in general.

Hell, we have established that Western central banks are rigging all mkts. Why would we care what some clown in a failed soverign, central bank or the ECB has to say? We know the outcome... time to move on. Let the HF traders play till they destroy whats left of the paper markets. What China is doing with the yuan, bond issuance, gold purchases, etc, is more important to me than watching the last stand of the ECB or knowing what date the Fed and ECB begin unlimited coordinated printing.

Now I am beginning to have problems with ZH ads loading up my computer... I may move on if something can't be done about the ads... I know that the revenue is needed by ZH but there should be some way to display ads AND avoid wrecking their readers computers.

Snidley - If you still want to read Asia Time online get the Tor Browser Bundle -. It automatically runs TOR (anonymous) and Mozilla Firefox pre-modified with script & pop-up blockers. If you are really paranoid, you can download Tor Tails and boot from a CD or USB stick without touching your systems hard drive. These two simple setups give you anonymous browsing with a mininimal internet footprint.

the critical processes at hand in the world economy will most probably start in EU. If the problems are not solved or postponed then you will feel and see them within a month in US and soon after in China.And China can do practically nothing to prevent this - they cannot even help their own economy to ease the slowdown. This is the (sad) reality

Thanks for the new news source. I noticed that the Global Research RSS feed only puts up a link to the story on their site. I prefer to just have the full article in my reader. I used Super Full Feeds for Google Reader extension in Chrome to save me having to go to their site.

My question is always "when is a conspiracy not really a conspiracy, but rather open knowledge that some people selectively ignore"?

In other words, people hear want they want to hear and absorb what they agree with, while dismissing everything else that doesn't fit in their world view. Worse yet people try to manipulate the facts in order to support the status quo from which they are benefiting.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynahan (No I don't support him however I just like the quote.)

When it comes to forming opinions and making judgments on hot political issues, partisans of both parties don't let facts get in the way of their decision-making, according to a new Emory University study. The research sheds light on why staunch Democrats and Republicans can hear the same information, but walk away with opposite conclusions.

The investigators used functional neuroimaging (fMRI) to study a sample of committed Democrats and Republicans during the three months prior to the U.S. Presidential election of 2004. The Democrats and Republicans were given a reasoning task in which they had to evaluate threatening information about their own candidate. During the task, the subjects underwent fMRI to see what parts of their brain were active. What the researchers found was striking.

"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," says Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory who led the study. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts." Westen and his colleagues will present their findings at the Annual Conference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Jan. 28.

Once partisans had come to completely biased conclusions -- essentially finding ways to ignore information that could not be rationally discounted -- not only did circuits that mediate negative emotions like sadness and disgust turn off, but subjects got a blast of activation in circuits involved in reward -- similar to what addicts receive when they get their fix, Westen explains.

"None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," says Westen. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones."

During the study, the partisans were given 18 sets of stimuli, six each regarding President George W. Bush, his challenger, Senator John Kerry, and politically neutral male control figures such as actor Tom Hanks. For each set of stimuli, partisans first read a statement from the target (Bush or Kerry). The first statement was followed by a second statement that documented a clear contradiction between the target's words and deeds, generally suggesting that the candidate was dishonest or pandering.

Next, partisans were asked to consider the discrepancy, and then to rate the extent to which the person's words and deeds were contradictory. Finally, they were presented with an exculpatory statement that might explain away the apparent contradiction, and asked to reconsider and again rate the extent to which the target's words and deeds were contradictory.

Behavioral data showed a pattern of emotionally biased reasoning: partisans denied obvious contradictions for their own candidate that they had no difficulty detecting in the opposing candidate. Importantly, in both their behavioral and neural responses, Republicans and Democrats did not differ in the way they responded to contradictions for the neutral control targets, such as Hanks, but Democrats responded to Kerry as Republicans responded to Bush.

While reasoning about apparent contradictions for their own candidate, partisans showed activations throughout the orbital frontal cortex, indicating emotional processing and presumably emotion regulation strategies. There also were activations in areas of the brain associated with the experience of unpleasant emotions, the processing of emotion and conflict, and judgments of forgiveness and moral accountability.

Notably absent were any increases in activation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most associated with reasoning (as well as conscious efforts to suppress emotion). The finding suggests that the emotion-driven processes that lead to biased judgments likely occur outside of awareness, and are distinct from normal reasoning processes when emotion is not so heavily engaged, says Westen.

The investigators hypothesize that emotionally biased reasoning leads to the "stamping in" or reinforcement of a defensive belief, associating the participant's "revisionist" account of the data with positive emotion or relief and elimination of distress. "The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data," Westen says.

The study has potentially wide implications, from politics to business, and demonstrates that emotional bias can play a strong role in decision-making, Westen says. "Everyone from executives and judges to scientists and politicians may reason to emotionally biased judgments when they have a vested interest in how to interpret 'the facts,' " Westen says.

Coauthors of the study include Pavel Blagov and Stephan Hamann of the Emory Department of Psychology, and Keith Harenski and Clint Kilts of the Emory Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences.

I attended the University of Missouri in the late 80's, they have a high profile journalism school. Several of my friends came to Columbia for the J-school and were taught that the public was incapable of making their own decisions. They had to investigate a story and instead of reporting it they needed to take one side and slant the story to influence the viewers. Looks like they have been building on that foundation.

News is no longer Journalism, it is propaganda. They don't report the news, they tell you what to think. The sooner you realize that Katie Couric, et al, is a Democratic Liberal, the sooner you'll understand. That goes for Fox news and any other "News" outlet.

Note: MSM ratings are tanking b/c people are figuring it out. It's just propaganda.

This assumes of course, that "journalism" and "reporting" was ever anything else but propaganda in service to an agenda. The biggest lie they told was that "the media" is objective, which it has never been.

I will grant you that it has never been so blatant in our lifetimes as it is today, but a look at newspapers and radio programs from the past will show that we actually still have a ways to go.

Each and every one of us has a bias, this cannot be overcome by the job description "Reporter".

Lets not forget that is was Cronkite that "ended" the Vietnam war and Woodward and Bernstein that brought down Nixon (so we are lead to believe). Newsweek and the rest of the media could have brought down Clinton in '98, but they chose not to, it would not have served their interests.

Selective outrage, creative editing, quoting out of context, ignoring facts, call it what you want, its all lies, and its fact that will not go away and one that exists in EVERY media outlet.

that's true. it's their feeble attempt to feign applying the scientific method to journalism where a result or hypothesis is supposed and then they go about bolstering it by primarily gathering only supporting data .

they ignore that in science the hypothesis is actually supposed to be tested exhaustively and unbiasedly - not just ramrodded through.

Ben Bradlee, editor of the WaPo at the time of the Watergate scandal, was the speaker at my college graduation; he basically told us that the truth is what we (the media) tell you it is. Surprisingly honest but very disheartening.

My mother-in-law who I went round and round with when I first got married once told me, "If it wasn't true, then they couldn't print it." I then showed her the front page of the "Inquirer" which had a banner saying"Flying bear attacks campers." She said it must be true.

I knew then that any energy spent from then on out was wasted energy and that debate was futile. Kind of running across many such people these days...

Edward Bernays wrote of this in "Propaganda" and applied that phhilosophy to help get the country into the first world war, even though it wasn't in most Americans best interests. Such manipulation has been going on since ancient times, but became much more sophisticated and effective with modern mass media beginning around WWI. Bernays came out and wrote that the public would need to be propagandized by their betters, - - the behind the scenes, so-called 'elites'.

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country." - Edward Bernays, Propaganda

Jekyll Island... This man, and the influence he had on the world by way of his uncle's work, will go a long way toward explaining why the world of journalism (and all other disciplines in humanities) are as they are today. He understood, through his uncles research, that people are moved by emotion... regardless of how outraged they become when that fact is presented to them. Only a miniscule portion of the population, when exercising extreme self discipline, are at all times capable of acting on reason.

Kind of depressing really. I tried to post a bunch of zerohedge, goldseek, and marketoracle articles on Facebook. I think people either ignored it or 'unsubscribed' from my feed. I just quietly go about my business feeling like Neil Anderson in the Matrix. I understand the system, but am not smart enough to figure out how to change it. Sigh....

People will never see what is wrong with the system until it effects them. Everyone has that "aha" moment that drives them to start thinking the way that we do and to start educating themselves the way we do. Lets face it, being "awake" is a sort of burden. Too many that I come across live by the meme that "ignorance is bliss."

Most people are happy to work their 9 to 5, go home to the TV, and wake up to do it all over again and will mentally defend their status quo until it is ripped away from them.

You bringing up gay sex after a post like this is a form of disinfo IMO.

America is faced with much bigger issues then whether or not a guy wants to fuck another guy. Im a straight man who could care less what other people do in their bedrooms, provided they leave me and my family alone.

We have a broken political system, a broken financial system, a out of control spending problem that by design can only get bigger and you want to worry about men's penis's?

The point is - that they are not "leaving you alone". They are forcing conformity through political correctness...

Expressing an oppion is labeled as "hate speech"...and not to be tolerated....

Whether or you not believe in gay marriage or illegal immigration you should be able to express an opinion without the world jumping down your shit as a "HATER". As long as we let the PC crowd tell us what we can or cannot say we are screwed!

+100 on your post. The PC crowd demands 'tolerance' and freedom of choice, but only as long as your opinion is the same as theirs. Anybody voice that opinion and you are in trouble...you are a hater, homophobe, a racist, a anti semite, etc.

I think I get what he is trying to say.... The PC movement or sentiment came on strong and really out of nowhere.

Recall that being PC also involves embracing diversity and a host of other 'new thinking'.

The broader PC protocols are anti-family and anti nation state. The family and the nation are bonding agents for humans. I don't doubt for a second that these bonds are being systematically weakened in order to pave the way for a global collectivist technocracy. Tony Blair has admitted that he opened the floodgates to immigration in order to destroy all that was 'British' about Britain.

Don't be drawn off topic by confusing the PC agenda and helping to obfuscate it by talking about homosexual acts.

The PC is not a movement. It came from a concerted effort by the main stream media. It began telling people you cant say this or you cant say that about 15 years ago. And this was not a coincidence either. But 99% do not want to hear about the string pulling in the shadows and would not believe it anyway since they are committed to believing the matrix.

I actually remember corporate America spearheading PC back in the day... nobody in the office had heard of it and assumed it was a computer class, -PC-, but when we got in there it was all 'tolerance for all things....'

They were selling it as an umbrella program for all the divisive politics we've seen since...

The whole PC thing was just a way to slowly introduce censorship, get people used to refrain from critical speach and give more power of opression to those wielding the reins of the State.

The objective is to eliminate freedom of speech: first the MSM creates a movement against saying certain things, then politicians make laws to forbid saying those things, later the list of things that can't be said gets progressivelly extended, eventually including criticism of TPTB.

For example, here in the UK, people have been convicted to jail for saying "racist" things in public or making racist tweets. Just recently a UK court ruled that when you send a message to just one person it's still considered public speech for the purposes of the law, so all those PC laws now apply to one-to-one communications over the Net. I think the direction things are going is pretty obvious ...

The funny thing is that beyond a certain point the PC movement actually hurts those minorities they claim to defend:

There are always going to be people that have extreme dislike for groups of other people due to irrational reasons, be it skin color, gender, religious beliefs, sexual behaviour, their choice of socks or whatever and as long as the more extreme nutjobs amongst them are allowed to spew their stuff in public, it just makes it plainly visible to all others just how big assholes such people are considered by most people and just how little support the most extremist views have.

If instead people are jailed for the smallest of criticism that might be perceived as racist/sexist/other-ist then not only will many such start to be perceived as victims of the minority that was supposedelly being protected of hearing those things, but also such behaviours will be kept private and grow in strength without the softening effect that comes from interacting with people who do not share those beliefs. In effect, this causes spoken public discriminatory speach to decrease but privatelly it will increase and non-verbal discriminatory actions will also increase (for example, somebody might quietly refrain from hiring somebody else on skin color, but say nothing about it and instead give a false reason).

One simple line, the enactment of the New World Order (aka. One World Governance) is under progress...

The Illuminati are a kind of secret world government, their main goal is to create the New World Order (NWO), a fascist-communist global 1984-style dictatorship where every citizen is totally controlled with an implanted RFID chip. One of the exoteric key institutions of the illuminations are the Bilderbergs, for example.

Within the illuminati one can distinguish THREE circles:

1) EXOTERIC (OUTER) circle: e.g. Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and others. Many on this level (e.g. one-time Bilderberg participants) are more or less clueless what's really going on, but their egos are pleased that they are so close to those with the real power.

2) INNER circle: e.g. regular Bilderberg participants

3) ESOTERIC circle: e.g. Grand Masters of occult societies. That's where the NWO (New World Order) plans are erected. If these plans are implemented or not depends a lot on whether the outer circle can be convinced.

Seeing the sharp escalation of world troubles, seems it's true what's stated there about the biological clock concerns of the puppet masters!

"THERE IS ENORMOUS BIOLOGICAL TIME PRESSURE, time is running out for the esoteric circle: ZBIG BRZEZINSKI, the author of "The GRAND CHESSBOARD", is 82 years old, HENRY KISSINGER 87 years, and DAVID ROCK3F3LL3R even 95 years. They have worked many decades for their big goal and have to act (too) fast, which will bring about their downfall."

I feel like thats 5 minutes of my life i won't be getting back..its not like any of this is new info?? Trade and make money today..and use that money to go buy some glod bars. I always wondered why the SNB doesn't "sterilize" their EURCHF peg selling of CHF by buying gold bars with all their new EUR...wouldn't that make more sense?

"I always wondered why the SNB doesn't "sterilize" their EURCHF peg selling of CHF by buying gold bars with all their new EUR...wouldn't that make more sense?"

It would...nice pattern. What logic and rhetoric can be applied?

The Swiss want to be paid in gold at a later date and can demand more gold if the price is held low. This was from Martin's last post, otherwise, I am with you. What is the big deal about too many Euros coming in. Just by gold with them.

Yet before the demonstration could begin, the apparatus in the lecture theatre began to tap out a message. At first, it spelled out just one word repeated over and over. Then it changed into a facetious poem accusing Marconi of "diddling the public".

Permission to reprint/distribute hereby granted for any non commercial use provided information reproduced in its entirety and with author information in tact. For more Intel/Shadow government related info, visit the Light vs. Shadow home page: http://www.teleport.com/~sweenfam/lightshadow.html

Built upon "Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression" by David Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate in the world of dealing with truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums. Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against those seeking to uncover and expose the conspiracy. There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as revealed here. Also included with this material are seven common traits of the disinfo artist which may also prove useful in identifying players and motives. The more a particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive.

Understand that when the those seeking resolution of such crimes proceed in attempting to uncover truth, they try their best to present factual information constructed as an argument for a particular chain of evidence towards a particular solution to the crime. This can be a largely experimental process via trial and error, with a theory developed over time to perfection or defeated by the process. This is their most vulnerable time, the time when a good disinfo artist can do the greatest harm to the process.

I love ABC News, with Dianne Sawyer, (a $12 million dollar ditz) talking about the evil, rich millionaires, and how they need to pay more in taxes. Actually, truth be told, I can't stand the demonizing of the wealth, and the "double standards", and this goes for "two faced politicians".

Back in the Great Depression, we were still an aspirational people, looking up to the rich and wanting to reach those heights; today we demonize. I think the difference is that, back then, it was possible for many to improve their lot; today it's not, so the media and politicians soothe us by tearing into them.

Taxing rich people... which ones? Jamie Dimon and Llyod Blankenfiend? I say seize all of their assets and throw them in jail. If all of our agencies weren't subject of regulatory capture I think there would be less class warfare since a lot of these billionaire banksters would be in jail. We should not be penalizing American millionaires who "made it", but these wankin' f'ing banksters are in a class by themselves.

Tthe problem is those who have gathered vast amounts of wealth from inheritance, parasitical activities (i.e. rent seeking), being politically connected, corruption, abusing the trust placed in them (i.e. CEO's that pay themselves vast amount for incompetence or worse) or in general any form of gain made from manipulating the system, parasiting or deceiving vast numbers of people.

Unfortunately, most of the rich nowadays are in the problem group. So yeah, tax the hell out of them.

As for the few real entrepreneurs and wealth builders, they need to be celebrated more.

federal income tax is, relatively speaking, fairly new to the U.S.A. it started around 70 to 80 years ago. one wonders... why tax income at all if, for 2/3 of the US's history it wasn't needed? so much of the governments' job has become social justice issues that it's bound to disappoint. Result? Govt = MSM=you all must think the same thing.

get the fed gov't back to its original 1776 purpose... which was what? (hint: didn't involve war powers act).

what if we pick a year in the US's history that we can all agree on and restore America to that point in time? my guess is that massive forces would ensure the year picked would not involve Andrew Jackson's presidency.

This is why I get such strange looks when I suggest teaching Logic in high school. The kids are the only ones who want it, but unfortunately they won't get it and they'll end up being used like Robert Byrd's Depends.

I looked at about a dozen mining Co's quoted on the London SE last week.. what became apparent is the vast majority of companies share prices went up and down with almost no relationship to either the Gold price nor the normal develoment pattern you'd expect of a miner exploring for Gold and finding/not finding it

price reveals a hell of a lot

these companies share prices were being driven up on rumour and speculation and then driven down as the bubble burst (bullshit was revealed) time after time after time. Namely the rumours that drove up price were proven lies by the price action to the downside

so we have rampant rumour/lying on the London SE yet its fuking worhtles and corrupt regulator is not seeing this farcical price action as proof of deceipt and corruption (and quite simply theft/fleecing of investors money) through the age-old technique of paid shills Pumping & Dumping